9 ms·

The Problem with Music (1993)

115 points by brudgers 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vrglvrglvrgl 4y ago
[dead]
650 4y ago
Not knowing too much about sound engineering myself, I tried comparing it to software engineering. At the end of the day what matters is your output and learning along the way. It seems the author has a gripe with people calling themselves producers. If someone said I can’t call myself a software engineer until I had interned at XYZ company and understood Kubernetes, Docker, Typescript, AWS, Rust, etc. I would say ok and? I know there are thousands and thousands of producers and artists making content that isn’t of the highest quality, but at the end of the day they are creating. Setting an unreasonable bar of skill is not the way forward.
- throwaway1777 4y ago
  The bar will only get lower with ai assists. Gatekeeping is either essential or futile depending on your perspective.
- bryzaguy 4y ago
  I do understand sound engineering. I think their gripe is people claiming they understand how to make something sound good with no actual knowledge of how to do it then making up words along the way. Imagine you have a manager tell you to make the site more “zazzy” with a straight face. Imagine all managers start doing this.
- boomskats 4y ago
  "The author" in this case is Steve Albini[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Albini_discography#As_an_audio_engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Albini_discography#As_an...
- ehutch79 4y ago
  The date on the article is actually important here. Music recording is MUCH different then it is today, 20 years later. The best you could do for a home recording was a (comparative to today) shitty 4 track cassette recorder. You really needed some training on the equipment to know what you're doing. The resources just wern't there otherwise. The analogy for the worst cases here is more 'I've turned a computer on, so, Mr Torvalds, heres how a kernel is written'. Of course there were a few brilliant producers. There mostly mediocre producers who just got the job done, that you'll never hear about. Only the outliers, the best and worst get remembered.
  - microtonal 4y ago
    30 years later (I started listening to a lot of music as a teenager around that time, including Albini-engineered music, realizing that that is about 30 years ago makes me feel... old?)
    - ehutch79 4y ago
      Oh.... yeah... now i feel even older
      - olddustytrail 4y ago
        I had one of those last week when I was watching "Back To The Future" and realised that in a current remake, Marty McFly would be going back in time to the Olden Days of 1993.
- jeffreygoesto 4y ago
  Sorry, but creating and engineering are on two different axes IMHO. Engineering is about using math and science to achieve things, kind of "the way". Creating is about "the goal". You can create beautiful things by just trying random stuff... For me, the vast majority of software is not engineering.
  - livelielife 4y ago
    I agree with software not being engineering. but I disagree that engineering is just execution. I disagree even harder that you can create something by throwing random stuff,, you may well find something cool like that but I think creation does require more of a clear intent than random throwing and finding as if by chance.
- dahart 4y ago
  The issue is that producers have no bar at all for the role, and the role is not well defined, unlike software engineers that typically have a 4 year degree, 2 year degree, or at the very least a code camp, before being hired. Would you hire someone for software engineering who had no engineering training or experience just because they can talk lucidly and in detail about what software they like? Maybe a better software analogy here would be to compare producers to product managers. Great PMs are truly gold, but the PM role’s technical requirements are nebulous, and there are plenty of PMs who don’t know how to write code, and don’t know how to craft a good product, and don’t know how to communicate with customers effectively, essentially having no skills required for the job, but able to talk convincingly to enough of the right people to get hired and keep their jobs.
  - livelielife 4y ago
    > unlike software engineers that typically have a 4 year degree, 2 year degree... they do NOW. Back when a lot of us started getting involved with this, most 'engineers' had physics, engineering, mathematics, and other various backgrounds because software engineering degrees were too freaking new. In the near-future (10 5? years? possibly sooner?) kids are gonna graduate with specialized PM degrees having gone to highschool thinking about being "product manager" when they grow up. When I was in highscool i wanted to be a Webmaster! now a webmaster is 15 people between desiginers, PMs, backend, frontend, QA, testers, blah blah blha
    - dahart 4y ago
      It’s a good point that things have changed a bit, but in 1993 when this article was written you couldn’t get a web job based on code camps, neither really existed. There was no role called webmaster yet. Webmaster today is a team only if you’re managing a large site, but not for small sites, and it doesn’t require many specific skills for small sites. Like you said, most engineers had degrees of some sort. For the purposes of comparing to a producer job (which has existed in film, tv, radio, and music for ~100 years) engineering has always had higher skill & technical requirements.
    - wyclif 4y ago
- somesortofsystm 4y ago
  >people calling themselves producers The music industry has just as big a headache with imposter syndrome, the Flynn factor, and the Peter principle, as any other industry. The issue is that the music industry is extremely exploitative, while being undeniably competitive. You don't get coders going to the extremes that members do, for their art. (Not sure if that is a good or bad thing, personally.) >producers and artists making content that isn’t of the highest quality, but at the end of the day they are creating. Setting an unreasonable bar of skill is not the way forward. Its not skill. Its sell-ability. It doesn't matter if you threw lemons at a piezo and called it done, if someone is willing to pay to listen to it - because it interests them - then you've got a hit. The ability to sell music is a very, very difficult thing to attain. Music is immediately free upon creation. We, of course, have imposed a great deal of arbitrary limits on its production and reproduction and broadcast and distribution over the years - but the fact we still have musicians out there, mind-blowingly great ones in fact, who will never get discovered in their lifetimes is a clue: music is language. It therefore cannot and should not, ever, be limited by government - or its adherents - in ways which prevent the use of this language.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    If you're going to apply that argument you should apply it to everything - music, art, software, money, property of all kinds. But you won't, because the argument always comes to down to "Stuff I want should be free because I want it. Stuff that profits me personally should have legal and moral protections unless I personally have the luxury of choosing otherwise." That aside - it's skill too. Of a specific kind. Producers have - actually have always had - two jobs. One is the admin side of delivering the project on time and on budget - which is not as easy as it sounds when band members may be drunk, high, unreliable, on the verge of a personal or professional breakdown, or at war with each other. The other is having the taste and instinct to hit the market just where it wants to be hit. Taste and instinct are incredibly nebulous and hard to define, but music buyers know them when they hear them. They're the difference between a record that sounds polished and a record that somehow has a life of its own. With respect to Albini, having an EE degree has absolutely no relevance to this. If anything it will get in the way, because EE degrees teach you nothing about taste and musicality. Nor - unfortunately - does talent in the abstract. Some musicians are just too talented for the mainstream. In a saner culture we'd subsidise them - somehow - without relying on the middle-of-the-bell-curve markets to do something they're fundamentally unable to do.
somesortofsystm 4y ago
I have been making music for decades. Not professionally of course, but only for myself. I think in the rush for fandom we forget that it is quite possible to be the best musician you know. Music is one of those healing substances that will always work and doesn't require you to invest heavily or be addicted or sign a subscription. It will just heal you. The fact that this has been industrialized and indeed weaponised in the Western world is a bit of a travesty - but we must never forget that our music schools produce 4 - 5 million new musicians a year. This is why I say, the only rock and roll industry is the one where the guitars are being made and new instruments designed and fashioned - for us all. The idols come and go. That old synthesizer will have a lot, lot longer use than the CD rack ..
hippich 4y ago
I wonder how these calculations changed with the rise of production using computers, especially for electronic music, where even a studio is likely not a hard requirement anymore? I am sure also a lot changed with the rise of various streaming platforms and services allowing to distribute your music to these easily.
- dclowd9901 4y ago
  Many (most?) new prominent acts get their start in their bedrooms with SoundCloud. It’s beautiful. I don’t think there’s ever even a case where they _have_ to go through the industry ringer. They can just keep cleaning up using self promotion and Spotify royalties. Of course if they want to tour, that changes the equation a bit.
  - bombolo 4y ago
    Radio is still a thing, and studios decide what goes on there.
    - mikeryan 4y ago
      Is it though? I grew up in the Bay Area listening to “Live 105” the local Alt-Rock station. It doesn’t even exist anymore. There’s maybe one station on the dial that caters to a demographic younger then 40. I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30.
      - te_chris 4y ago
        Internet radio is real and thriving. I listen to NTS all the time, e.g.
      - bombolo 4y ago
        > Is it though? Yes. > I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30. Maybe you don't drive? If you drive and you get tired of listening and re-listening the stuff you have on your phone… radio it is.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> That’s why few self-respecting engineers will allow themselves to be called “producers.” btw, HN'ers, I'm preparing a new Substack post about "music movies you haven't seen" and one of the ones I saw when it came out was about a recording engineer! Imagine that. I think Tom Dowd is the only engineer anyone would make a movie about. It's Tom Dowd and the Language of Music and now I can't find it anywhere. Can you?
- kodt 4y ago
  I did end up getting a copy, but looks like you found it elsewhere. The copy I found though the person who uploaded it does not want it shared on YouTube or any other platform. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up, it looks interesting!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kencausey 4y ago
  This is the cheapest copy I could find in 30 seconds: https://www.ebay.com/itm/155484714542?epid=30902174 https://www.ebay.com/itm/155484714542?epid=30902174
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Thanks. Yeah, I don't need to own it; just watch it again. No Amazon Prime, no Netflix, no Kanopy.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    My Monday morning inspiration: maybe I can get it uploaded to YouTube! They have lots of movies there that probably get fewer views than this would. I need to find the copyright owners.
- kodt 4y ago
  I found it on a community specializing in out of print media. I'll see if I can get a copy.
- 4y ago
omar_alt 4y ago
I wonder what would be a good Steve Albini type plugin to get one of those increasingly rare young bands to sound like they had just recorded Rid of Me or Surfer Rosa? ;)
- throwaway743 4y ago
  Oooo or Atomizer
- Applejinx 4y ago
  Soothe into OTT. Clearly. ;)
CuriouslyC 4y ago
The irony of this is that a lot of the sound engineering stuff isn't a thing anymore for recorded music - the producers won. If you mic properly and choose a space with the right acoustics you can achieve almost anything with walkthrough GUIs using a DAW and some plugins.
- PUSH_AX 4y ago
  Mics? Chances are (unless you're a vocalist) you can either DI straight into a plugin or use a VSTi to just midi program a sampled version of your instrument both performed and engineered to a higher standard than you can reach.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    While I've certainly done everything in software, there are a lot of genres (such as metal) where micing is a part of the sound. If you listen to metalcore vs a lot of metal, you can hear it.
    - PUSH_AX 4y ago
      I would disagree on that, as a hobbyist metal guitarist myself, software like Neural DSP, Bogren etc has made such strides in amp modelling that you can get the same sounds in the box. There are a number of releases I've heard where you simply cannot tell the difference, arguably nor should you bother trying, they sound fantastic.
      - ironman1478 4y ago
        A lot of amp modeling software allows you to place the mic virtually in different positions because it affects the sound. I think when using a Kemper to profile an amp, it models the microphone + amplifier
        progrus 4y ago
        The cabinet and speaker are also modeled, and in some ways those are more important than the amp: https://youtu.be/-eeC1XyZxYs https://youtu.be/-eeC1XyZxYs
livelielife 4y ago
they are talking about the recording industry more than about music; so I suppose I agree? the recording industry is the problem that music has. But this 'problem' is not limited to music.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  > the recording industry is the problem that music has. But this 'problem' is not limited to music. In most other industries the individual isn't part of the product, but replaceable a lot more easily.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  That’s (the music industry) is their point. They wrote this well into a prominent career working in the industry. It’s not just some navel gazing about the impact, it’s served as a reality calibration for musicians seeking something on the spectrum of sustainable career to stardom for decades. The sobering reality that “success” in music is and has been mostly a vessel to concentrate wealth and direct culture at the whims of a few powerful people is definitely not limited to music, but it’s something musicians deserve to be aware of in the particulars of how it plays out.
okareaman 4y ago
The beauty with the internet and now AI is that it greatly reduces the power of and need for gatekeepers who take most of the profit
- bombolo 4y ago
  Bullshit. You can't run your own AI, so the AI is gatekept.
- atoav 4y ago
  Sure. I as a musician that practised for years to play the right note in the right way the right moment will truly appreciate it when the unique style I developed with my band over years of work and sweat will be cloned in mere seconds by a multi-national corporation and their AI. Or it could be a 13 year old teenager that has the AI create music in the style of someone else. Not that I am against sampling and remixing, but I have yet to see that AI based cloning of music can truly become an artform with it's own merits like sampling has become — or whether it will destroy the filaments of reality to such a degree music will have to become something entirely different than it is now. What I am sure of, is that those who have power today will find ways to hold that power tomorrow.
  - okareaman 4y ago
    There will be two groups of people: those who figure out how to use AI to their benefit and those who don't
    - atoav 4y ago
      And those who figure it out and still won't benefit, because bigger entites do what bigger entites always did when technological promises loomed at the horizon.
  - teolandon 4y ago
    You are not the authority on what counts as an "artform of its own". I agree with your last statement though.
georgeecollins 4y ago
Here is something that may be of use. When someone sends you or hands you a contract, read it. If they hand you a contract and expect you to sign it on the spot either ask to look at it overnight or sit down and read it in the spot. Anyone who expects you to sign something without reading it should feel shady. Read it with a pen in hand. You are allowed to change things in a contract. People often give you things as pdfs or paper with the implication that you shouldn’t make any changes. If you don’t understand something in the contract you may just want to cross it out. It’s true that many contracts are take it or leave it deals, but you never know until you try. And you want to know where you stand. Also the back and forth leads to a lot of clarification. Always be very polite. Get your own copy of the signed document. All of this applies to employment offers, leases, work for hire, etc. IANAL
- slaymaker1907 4y ago
  From what I read in the article, you need to also avoid signing anything that says you’ll sign something else later (why in the world is that kind of contract legal?).
  - lisper 4y ago
    Your question makes a mistaken assumption about contracts. Contracts are not "legal" or "illegal", they are "binding" or "non-binding". And a contract that stipulates that you will sign something else later is generally non-binding. The people who ask you to sign such contracts are counting on you not knowing that. There are several criteria that a contract needs to meet in order to be binding. Interestingly, being written down and signed is not one of them. Verbal contracts can be binding. The reason for writing them down and signing them is to avoid he-said-she-said type arguments if there is a dispute. One of the criteria for a legally binding contract is that there has to be an actual "meeting of the minds", i.e. that the two parties have to actually agree on what their obligations under the contract actually are. An obligation to sign some unspecified thing in the future does not meet that criterion because you don't know what you are agreeing to. (For this reason, a ToS "contract" which allows one party to change the terms unilaterally cannot be binding. You have to be given the opportunity to reject the changes.) But most people don't know these things, and so they allow themselves to be manipulated by charlatans who do. Disclaimer: IANAL. But I've signed a lot of contracts, some of which I shouldn't have.
ChancyChance 4y ago
I first read this article in the book "Commodify Your Dissent", which is a collection of phenomenally accurate critiques of post-80's culture https://store.thebaffler.com/products/commodify-your-dissent https://store.thebaffler.com/products/commodify-your-dissent
motohagiography 4y ago
Now do startups. But seriously, while I have not got to investment stage, I have been in shitty bands in the early 90s where I know the names of the people in the article, had partners in the model-acting-whatever game, written as a freelancer and lived with authors and publishing people, and then also worked on hopeful startup products for myself and others, and even sometimes help VCs choose decks from the slop pile. It's the exact same grind across all those industries. Reality is, you are either money side, or talent side, and there is almost nothing in between, other than the "judas goat" roles of the A&R guy, writing course adjunct, model scout, VC associate, where you get a job bringing talent into the funnel. If you thought your dev job was different, your recruiter is probably getting compensated with 20-30% of your first year's salary if you persist in the job for 6mos, and if you are in the contracting game without negotiation skills or leverage, the company you work for is paying anywhere from 20% to 100% premium to your agency where you do work, an they did their work. Around the time of this article in my late teens or early 20s I was sitting beside a pool at the vast country estate of a friends very wealthy parents, and I asked him, "How do I get this?" He told me something along the lines of "the reason you don't make any money is because you want money for what it gets you, like freedom, approval, acknowledgement of your talent, status, appreciation, and maybe some nicer versions of what you need to live. You don't actually want money, you don't make it for its own sake, and you don't use it or manage it to make more of it, you use it for these other things." I responded, "Of course, why would I want to be a slave to making money? What an empty life. I don't want to be some douche bag bridge and tunnel tourist working at a bank." He said, "If you want this, you need to only want that. You don't get this from what money gets." The lecture didn't land at all. I was always a bit of a punk ass. I went on to do some really interesting stuff, where decades later I make a passable living having done some interesting and even legendary things I get to dine out on the stories from, but while I don't have many regrets, I am conscious of the attitude in this article and how it plays out. If you want money, make money. if you want something else, own that. Thinking you're going to be wealthy from your talent and efforts is practically the definition of magical thinking. Money is made by managing it, which means getting some, leveraging and investing it and extracting value from the risk and growth. There's nothing wrong with not being wealthy, I do it very well, but attributing our ignorance about money to injustice, as a way to protect our magical thinking about the untested value of our talent, is to be stuck in a kind of adolescence.
analog31 4y ago
>>>> Especially “Punchy” and “Warm.” Every time I hear those words, I want to throttle somebody. I've seen this first-hand. I'm a bassist. When you ask any bassist about their sound, they all say that they want it to be "punchy." Every bass, amplifier, and speaker is described as "punchy." If not, it doesn't even make it to the market. Protip: To overcome any problem with your sound, turn the volume up a bit. This is also a known trick in the studio, and the equipment showroom: Make a few arbitrary adjustments, then play it back again, but with the volume turned up.
- mitch3x3 4y ago
  Punchy commonly translates to “compressed” and warm to “saturated/distorted”. Volume will of course help, but it’s not always what people want.
  - IAmGraydon 4y ago
    Punch is typically referring to a waveform with high dynamic range - the opposite of compressed. Warm usually indicates a sound with rolled off highs and boosted midrange.
    - analog31 4y ago
      Interestingly, in addition to being a bassist, I'm also an electronics freak. I've studied every amp schematic that I can lay my hands on, have built my own gear, and read a lot of online commentary on the subject. In my observation, a fair generalization is that for every term describing tone quality, there are equal and opposite definitions and explanations.
- noduerme 4y ago
  Not to do with tonal quality, but in the ages of 4- and 8-track garage recording my music with semi-formed bands, the phrase I'm sure I was most guilty of using toward bassists was "drive it home". That always referred to a specific point in a song, though, and at least was something I could pick up a bass and demonstrate. It's that moment when the bass is supposed to deliver the satisfaction of answering and closing, resetting the rhythm and the melody at the same time, taking everything from noodly to clean again.
vanjajaja1 4y ago
People conflate music with the drama that is the allure of quick and easy fame.
simoneau 4y ago
See also "Courtney Love does the math" (2000) for a similar analysis of the music industry: https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
- UberFly 4y ago
  That was a good read, thanks. I'd like to know how the last 20 yrs have effected things and if musicians are still getting just as screwed. Sadly I'm guessing yes.
  - bsder 4y ago
    From TFA: > They spend half a million to record their album. This changed: bands now get less that $50K to do the album.
tptacek 4y ago
producer : music :: architect : software.
WalterBright 4y ago
This is about the same with starting any other business. The gross revenue sounds good, but everything costs money and everyone has their hand out to get paid. The business owner is dead last in getting paid. A lot of people conflate "revenue" with "profit". They have a very rude awakening when they try to start a business.

115 points by brudgers 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vrglvrglvrgl 4y ago

[dead]

650 4y ago

Not knowing too much about sound engineering myself, I tried comparing it to software engineering. At the end of the day what matters is your output and learning along the way. It seems the author has a gripe with people calling themselves producers. If someone said I can’t call myself a software engineer until I had interned at XYZ company and understood Kubernetes, Docker, Typescript, AWS, Rust, etc. I would say ok and? I know there are thousands and thousands of producers and artists making content that isn’t of the highest quality, but at the end of the day they are creating. Setting an unreasonable bar of skill is not the way forward.

throwaway1777 4y ago
The bar will only get lower with ai assists. Gatekeeping is either essential or futile depending on your perspective.
bryzaguy 4y ago
I do understand sound engineering. I think their gripe is people claiming they understand how to make something sound good with no actual knowledge of how to do it then making up words along the way. Imagine you have a manager tell you to make the site more “zazzy” with a straight face. Imagine all managers start doing this.
boomskats 4y ago
"The author" in this case is Steve Albini[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Albini_discography#As_an_audio_engineer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Albini_discography#As_an...
ehutch79 4y ago
The date on the article is actually important here. Music recording is MUCH different then it is today, 20 years later. The best you could do for a home recording was a (comparative to today) shitty 4 track cassette recorder. You really needed some training on the equipment to know what you're doing. The resources just wern't there otherwise. The analogy for the worst cases here is more 'I've turned a computer on, so, Mr Torvalds, heres how a kernel is written'. Of course there were a few brilliant producers. There mostly mediocre producers who just got the job done, that you'll never hear about. Only the outliers, the best and worst get remembered.
- microtonal 4y ago
  30 years later (I started listening to a lot of music as a teenager around that time, including Albini-engineered music, realizing that that is about 30 years ago makes me feel... old?)
  - ehutch79 4y ago
    Oh.... yeah... now i feel even older
    - olddustytrail 4y ago
      I had one of those last week when I was watching "Back To The Future" and realised that in a current remake, Marty McFly would be going back in time to the Olden Days of 1993.
jeffreygoesto 4y ago
Sorry, but creating and engineering are on two different axes IMHO. Engineering is about using math and science to achieve things, kind of "the way". Creating is about "the goal". You can create beautiful things by just trying random stuff... For me, the vast majority of software is not engineering.
- livelielife 4y ago
  I agree with software not being engineering. but I disagree that engineering is just execution. I disagree even harder that you can create something by throwing random stuff,, you may well find something cool like that but I think creation does require more of a clear intent than random throwing and finding as if by chance.
dahart 4y ago
The issue is that producers have no bar at all for the role, and the role is not well defined, unlike software engineers that typically have a 4 year degree, 2 year degree, or at the very least a code camp, before being hired. Would you hire someone for software engineering who had no engineering training or experience just because they can talk lucidly and in detail about what software they like? Maybe a better software analogy here would be to compare producers to product managers. Great PMs are truly gold, but the PM role’s technical requirements are nebulous, and there are plenty of PMs who don’t know how to write code, and don’t know how to craft a good product, and don’t know how to communicate with customers effectively, essentially having no skills required for the job, but able to talk convincingly to enough of the right people to get hired and keep their jobs.
- livelielife 4y ago
  > unlike software engineers that typically have a 4 year degree, 2 year degree... they do NOW. Back when a lot of us started getting involved with this, most 'engineers' had physics, engineering, mathematics, and other various backgrounds because software engineering degrees were too freaking new. In the near-future (10 5? years? possibly sooner?) kids are gonna graduate with specialized PM degrees having gone to highschool thinking about being "product manager" when they grow up. When I was in highscool i wanted to be a Webmaster! now a webmaster is 15 people between desiginers, PMs, backend, frontend, QA, testers, blah blah blha
  - dahart 4y ago
    It’s a good point that things have changed a bit, but in 1993 when this article was written you couldn’t get a web job based on code camps, neither really existed. There was no role called webmaster yet. Webmaster today is a team only if you’re managing a large site, but not for small sites, and it doesn’t require many specific skills for small sites. Like you said, most engineers had degrees of some sort. For the purposes of comparing to a producer job (which has existed in film, tv, radio, and music for ~100 years) engineering has always had higher skill & technical requirements.
  - wyclif 4y ago
somesortofsystm 4y ago
>people calling themselves producers The music industry has just as big a headache with imposter syndrome, the Flynn factor, and the Peter principle, as any other industry. The issue is that the music industry is extremely exploitative, while being undeniably competitive. You don't get coders going to the extremes that members do, for their art. (Not sure if that is a good or bad thing, personally.) >producers and artists making content that isn’t of the highest quality, but at the end of the day they are creating. Setting an unreasonable bar of skill is not the way forward. Its not skill. Its sell-ability. It doesn't matter if you threw lemons at a piezo and called it done, if someone is willing to pay to listen to it - because it interests them - then you've got a hit. The ability to sell music is a very, very difficult thing to attain. Music is immediately free upon creation. We, of course, have imposed a great deal of arbitrary limits on its production and reproduction and broadcast and distribution over the years - but the fact we still have musicians out there, mind-blowingly great ones in fact, who will never get discovered in their lifetimes is a clue: music is language. It therefore cannot and should not, ever, be limited by government - or its adherents - in ways which prevent the use of this language.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  If you're going to apply that argument you should apply it to everything - music, art, software, money, property of all kinds. But you won't, because the argument always comes to down to "Stuff I want should be free because I want it. Stuff that profits me personally should have legal and moral protections unless I personally have the luxury of choosing otherwise." That aside - it's skill too. Of a specific kind. Producers have - actually have always had - two jobs. One is the admin side of delivering the project on time and on budget - which is not as easy as it sounds when band members may be drunk, high, unreliable, on the verge of a personal or professional breakdown, or at war with each other. The other is having the taste and instinct to hit the market just where it wants to be hit. Taste and instinct are incredibly nebulous and hard to define, but music buyers know them when they hear them. They're the difference between a record that sounds polished and a record that somehow has a life of its own. With respect to Albini, having an EE degree has absolutely no relevance to this. If anything it will get in the way, because EE degrees teach you nothing about taste and musicality. Nor - unfortunately - does talent in the abstract. Some musicians are just too talented for the mainstream. In a saner culture we'd subsidise them - somehow - without relying on the middle-of-the-bell-curve markets to do something they're fundamentally unable to do.

somesortofsystm 4y ago

I have been making music for decades. Not professionally of course, but only for myself. I think in the rush for fandom we forget that it is quite possible to be the best musician you know. Music is one of those healing substances that will always work and doesn't require you to invest heavily or be addicted or sign a subscription. It will just heal you. The fact that this has been industrialized and indeed weaponised in the Western world is a bit of a travesty - but we must never forget that our music schools produce 4 - 5 million new musicians a year. This is why I say, the only rock and roll industry is the one where the guitars are being made and new instruments designed and fashioned - for us all. The idols come and go. That old synthesizer will have a lot, lot longer use than the CD rack ..

hippich 4y ago

I wonder how these calculations changed with the rise of production using computers, especially for electronic music, where even a studio is likely not a hard requirement anymore? I am sure also a lot changed with the rise of various streaming platforms and services allowing to distribute your music to these easily.

dclowd9901 4y ago
Many (most?) new prominent acts get their start in their bedrooms with SoundCloud. It’s beautiful. I don’t think there’s ever even a case where they _have_ to go through the industry ringer. They can just keep cleaning up using self promotion and Spotify royalties. Of course if they want to tour, that changes the equation a bit.
- bombolo 4y ago
  Radio is still a thing, and studios decide what goes on there.
  - mikeryan 4y ago
    Is it though? I grew up in the Bay Area listening to “Live 105” the local Alt-Rock station. It doesn’t even exist anymore. There’s maybe one station on the dial that caters to a demographic younger then 40. I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30.
    - te_chris 4y ago
      Internet radio is real and thriving. I listen to NTS all the time, e.g.
    - bombolo 4y ago
      > Is it though? Yes. > I’m not sure radio is still relevant for anyone under the age of 30. Maybe you don't drive? If you drive and you get tired of listening and re-listening the stuff you have on your phone… radio it is.

AlbertCory 4y ago

> That’s why few self-respecting engineers will allow themselves to be called “producers.” btw, HN'ers, I'm preparing a new Substack post about "music movies you haven't seen" and one of the ones I saw when it came out was about a recording engineer! Imagine that. I think Tom Dowd is the only engineer anyone would make a movie about. It's Tom Dowd and the Language of Music and now I can't find it anywhere. Can you?

kodt 4y ago
I did end up getting a copy, but looks like you found it elsewhere. The copy I found though the person who uploaded it does not want it shared on YouTube or any other platform. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up, it looks interesting!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kencausey 4y ago
This is the cheapest copy I could find in 30 seconds: https://www.ebay.com/itm/155484714542?epid=30902174 https://www.ebay.com/itm/155484714542?epid=30902174
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Thanks. Yeah, I don't need to own it; just watch it again. No Amazon Prime, no Netflix, no Kanopy.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  My Monday morning inspiration: maybe I can get it uploaded to YouTube! They have lots of movies there that probably get fewer views than this would. I need to find the copyright owners.
kodt 4y ago
I found it on a community specializing in out of print media. I'll see if I can get a copy.
4y ago

omar_alt 4y ago

I wonder what would be a good Steve Albini type plugin to get one of those increasingly rare young bands to sound like they had just recorded Rid of Me or Surfer Rosa? ;)

throwaway743 4y ago
Oooo or Atomizer
Applejinx 4y ago
Soothe into OTT. Clearly. ;)

CuriouslyC 4y ago

The irony of this is that a lot of the sound engineering stuff isn't a thing anymore for recorded music - the producers won. If you mic properly and choose a space with the right acoustics you can achieve almost anything with walkthrough GUIs using a DAW and some plugins.

PUSH_AX 4y ago
Mics? Chances are (unless you're a vocalist) you can either DI straight into a plugin or use a VSTi to just midi program a sampled version of your instrument both performed and engineered to a higher standard than you can reach.
- CuriouslyC 4y ago
  While I've certainly done everything in software, there are a lot of genres (such as metal) where micing is a part of the sound. If you listen to metalcore vs a lot of metal, you can hear it.
  - PUSH_AX 4y ago
    I would disagree on that, as a hobbyist metal guitarist myself, software like Neural DSP, Bogren etc has made such strides in amp modelling that you can get the same sounds in the box. There are a number of releases I've heard where you simply cannot tell the difference, arguably nor should you bother trying, they sound fantastic.
    - ironman1478 4y ago
      A lot of amp modeling software allows you to place the mic virtually in different positions because it affects the sound. I think when using a Kemper to profile an amp, it models the microphone + amplifier
      - progrus 4y ago
        The cabinet and speaker are also modeled, and in some ways those are more important than the amp: https://youtu.be/-eeC1XyZxYs https://youtu.be/-eeC1XyZxYs

livelielife 4y ago

they are talking about the recording industry more than about music; so I suppose I agree? the recording industry is the problem that music has. But this 'problem' is not limited to music.

someweirdperson 4y ago
> the recording industry is the problem that music has. But this 'problem' is not limited to music. In most other industries the individual isn't part of the product, but replaceable a lot more easily.
eyelidlessness 4y ago
That’s (the music industry) is their point. They wrote this well into a prominent career working in the industry. It’s not just some navel gazing about the impact, it’s served as a reality calibration for musicians seeking something on the spectrum of sustainable career to stardom for decades. The sobering reality that “success” in music is and has been mostly a vessel to concentrate wealth and direct culture at the whims of a few powerful people is definitely not limited to music, but it’s something musicians deserve to be aware of in the particulars of how it plays out.

okareaman 4y ago

The beauty with the internet and now AI is that it greatly reduces the power of and need for gatekeepers who take most of the profit

bombolo 4y ago
Bullshit. You can't run your own AI, so the AI is gatekept.
atoav 4y ago
Sure. I as a musician that practised for years to play the right note in the right way the right moment will truly appreciate it when the unique style I developed with my band over years of work and sweat will be cloned in mere seconds by a multi-national corporation and their AI. Or it could be a 13 year old teenager that has the AI create music in the style of someone else. Not that I am against sampling and remixing, but I have yet to see that AI based cloning of music can truly become an artform with it's own merits like sampling has become — or whether it will destroy the filaments of reality to such a degree music will have to become something entirely different than it is now. What I am sure of, is that those who have power today will find ways to hold that power tomorrow.
- okareaman 4y ago
  There will be two groups of people: those who figure out how to use AI to their benefit and those who don't
  - atoav 4y ago
    And those who figure it out and still won't benefit, because bigger entites do what bigger entites always did when technological promises loomed at the horizon.
- teolandon 4y ago
  You are not the authority on what counts as an "artform of its own". I agree with your last statement though.

georgeecollins 4y ago

Here is something that may be of use. When someone sends you or hands you a contract, read it. If they hand you a contract and expect you to sign it on the spot either ask to look at it overnight or sit down and read it in the spot. Anyone who expects you to sign something without reading it should feel shady. Read it with a pen in hand. You are allowed to change things in a contract. People often give you things as pdfs or paper with the implication that you shouldn’t make any changes. If you don’t understand something in the contract you may just want to cross it out. It’s true that many contracts are take it or leave it deals, but you never know until you try. And you want to know where you stand. Also the back and forth leads to a lot of clarification. Always be very polite. Get your own copy of the signed document. All of this applies to employment offers, leases, work for hire, etc. IANAL

slaymaker1907 4y ago
From what I read in the article, you need to also avoid signing anything that says you’ll sign something else later (why in the world is that kind of contract legal?).
- lisper 4y ago
  Your question makes a mistaken assumption about contracts. Contracts are not "legal" or "illegal", they are "binding" or "non-binding". And a contract that stipulates that you will sign something else later is generally non-binding. The people who ask you to sign such contracts are counting on you not knowing that. There are several criteria that a contract needs to meet in order to be binding. Interestingly, being written down and signed is not one of them. Verbal contracts can be binding. The reason for writing them down and signing them is to avoid he-said-she-said type arguments if there is a dispute. One of the criteria for a legally binding contract is that there has to be an actual "meeting of the minds", i.e. that the two parties have to actually agree on what their obligations under the contract actually are. An obligation to sign some unspecified thing in the future does not meet that criterion because you don't know what you are agreeing to. (For this reason, a ToS "contract" which allows one party to change the terms unilaterally cannot be binding. You have to be given the opportunity to reject the changes.) But most people don't know these things, and so they allow themselves to be manipulated by charlatans who do. Disclaimer: IANAL. But I've signed a lot of contracts, some of which I shouldn't have.

ChancyChance 4y ago

I first read this article in the book "Commodify Your Dissent", which is a collection of phenomenally accurate critiques of post-80's culture https://store.thebaffler.com/products/commodify-your-dissent https://store.thebaffler.com/products/commodify-your-dissent

motohagiography 4y ago

Now do startups. But seriously, while I have not got to investment stage, I have been in shitty bands in the early 90s where I know the names of the people in the article, had partners in the model-acting-whatever game, written as a freelancer and lived with authors and publishing people, and then also worked on hopeful startup products for myself and others, and even sometimes help VCs choose decks from the slop pile. It's the exact same grind across all those industries. Reality is, you are either money side, or talent side, and there is almost nothing in between, other than the "judas goat" roles of the A&R guy, writing course adjunct, model scout, VC associate, where you get a job bringing talent into the funnel. If you thought your dev job was different, your recruiter is probably getting compensated with 20-30% of your first year's salary if you persist in the job for 6mos, and if you are in the contracting game without negotiation skills or leverage, the company you work for is paying anywhere from 20% to 100% premium to your agency where you do work, an they did their work. Around the time of this article in my late teens or early 20s I was sitting beside a pool at the vast country estate of a friends very wealthy parents, and I asked him, "How do I get this?" He told me something along the lines of "the reason you don't make any money is because you want money for what it gets you, like freedom, approval, acknowledgement of your talent, status, appreciation, and maybe some nicer versions of what you need to live. You don't actually want money, you don't make it for its own sake, and you don't use it or manage it to make more of it, you use it for these other things." I responded, "Of course, why would I want to be a slave to making money? What an empty life. I don't want to be some douche bag bridge and tunnel tourist working at a bank." He said, "If you want this, you need to only want that. You don't get this from what money gets." The lecture didn't land at all. I was always a bit of a punk ass. I went on to do some really interesting stuff, where decades later I make a passable living having done some interesting and even legendary things I get to dine out on the stories from, but while I don't have many regrets, I am conscious of the attitude in this article and how it plays out. If you want money, make money. if you want something else, own that. Thinking you're going to be wealthy from your talent and efforts is practically the definition of magical thinking. Money is made by managing it, which means getting some, leveraging and investing it and extracting value from the risk and growth. There's nothing wrong with not being wealthy, I do it very well, but attributing our ignorance about money to injustice, as a way to protect our magical thinking about the untested value of our talent, is to be stuck in a kind of adolescence.

analog31 4y ago

>>>> Especially “Punchy” and “Warm.” Every time I hear those words, I want to throttle somebody. I've seen this first-hand. I'm a bassist. When you ask any bassist about their sound, they all say that they want it to be "punchy." Every bass, amplifier, and speaker is described as "punchy." If not, it doesn't even make it to the market. Protip: To overcome any problem with your sound, turn the volume up a bit. This is also a known trick in the studio, and the equipment showroom: Make a few arbitrary adjustments, then play it back again, but with the volume turned up.

mitch3x3 4y ago
Punchy commonly translates to “compressed” and warm to “saturated/distorted”. Volume will of course help, but it’s not always what people want.
- IAmGraydon 4y ago
  Punch is typically referring to a waveform with high dynamic range - the opposite of compressed. Warm usually indicates a sound with rolled off highs and boosted midrange.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Interestingly, in addition to being a bassist, I'm also an electronics freak. I've studied every amp schematic that I can lay my hands on, have built my own gear, and read a lot of online commentary on the subject. In my observation, a fair generalization is that for every term describing tone quality, there are equal and opposite definitions and explanations.
noduerme 4y ago
Not to do with tonal quality, but in the ages of 4- and 8-track garage recording my music with semi-formed bands, the phrase I'm sure I was most guilty of using toward bassists was "drive it home". That always referred to a specific point in a song, though, and at least was something I could pick up a bass and demonstrate. It's that moment when the bass is supposed to deliver the satisfaction of answering and closing, resetting the rhythm and the melody at the same time, taking everything from noodly to clean again.

vanjajaja1 4y ago

People conflate music with the drama that is the allure of quick and easy fame.

simoneau 4y ago

See also "Courtney Love does the math" (2000) for a similar analysis of the music industry: https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

UberFly 4y ago
That was a good read, thanks. I'd like to know how the last 20 yrs have effected things and if musicians are still getting just as screwed. Sadly I'm guessing yes.
- bsder 4y ago
  From TFA: > They spend half a million to record their album. This changed: bands now get less that $50K to do the album.

tptacek 4y ago

producer : music :: architect : software.

WalterBright 4y ago

This is about the same with starting any other business. The gross revenue sounds good, but everything costs money and everyone has their hand out to get paid. The business owner is dead last in getting paid. A lot of people conflate "revenue" with "profit". They have a very rude awakening when they try to start a business.